On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Roger D Carney
wrote:
>
>
> We moved the discussion onto Validate and Jody provided an overview of the
> problem space and the proposed solution. There was a general agreement that
> this proposal sounds good and seems like a logical business issue to
> resolve.
Ulrich,
thank you for writing this up. I think it is a good idea to have a document
with a definition of what a registry lock actually means (e.g. status
values to be set as listed in Section 2.3). However, some parts of your EPP
extension seem underspecified, here are a few comments and questio
Mario,
Here is my feedback regarding this draft:
I think it is useful for clients to request a partial response as described
in this draft.
Chapter 2:
The discussions of the different approaches to partial response, which I
guess led to the decision of the WG to go for field sets, should
Mario,
here is my feedback on this draft:
general comment:
I think it would be easier to understand the document if the actual
specification and the reasoning would switch places (or even go into a kind
of appendix).
Section 1:
Just as a side note: you talk about users interacting with
Hi Mario,
thanks for your clarifications. Having more definitions in RDAP profiles
makes sense to me.
Best,
Karl Heinz
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:33 PM Mario Loffredo
wrote:
> Hi Karl Heinz,
>
> thanks a lot for your review.
>
> My comments are inline.
> Il 21/01/2020
